FOCUSING ONLY ON DRUG HARM REDUCTION DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD

It's amazing how those who cry out for flexible thinking are prone to panic
at the sight of it.

I speak of criticism from drug proponents, over participation of VPD
officers in a recent drug conference. Vancouver's IDEAS symposium was held
to compare alternate versions of harm reduction for drug addicts from
Switzerland and Sweden, where restrictive models operate in contrast to
permissive ones.

Anti-VPD accusations were positively venomous:

It was said to be wrong for police officers to sit on the board of a group
opposed to Vancouver's "Four Pillar" approach to drug troubles. Yet the VPD
officers involved were off duty, acting as private citizens, and opposition
was not the aim of the conference.

VPD openness to the pillar approach is well established. The first three
pillars: prevention, enforcement and treatment tend to be ignored outright,
by the people doing the complaining.

Harm reduction, the fourth pillar and the focus of much obsession, embraces
assistance to addicts unable or unwilling to get clean.

Fixation on harm reduction at the expense of its counterparts is no service
at all to addicts. To accuse police of hatred, or of being
"anti-pillarites" because of an interest in all four pillars is somewhere
between unfair and deceitful.

The board which organized the IDEAS symposium was anything but bent on
world domination - it was assembled for a single event.

One of many people invited to take part in the event was Betty Sembler,
founder "Drug Free America." She was driven by police, from the airport to
the conference, as a courtesy to an elder. The cry has since gone up for
the officer providing the ride to be fired. Local nay-sayers have spoken
brazenly, calling Sembler a "court certified child abuser."

The accusation is rather a perverse insult. It seems Sembler was involved
in a prior drug project, involving court ordered treatment for the badly
addicted. While breaking the drug cycle long enough to offer a heads-up
fresh start is nothing to sneer at, Sembler received that and more.

It turns out the Swiss drug model, held out as an icon of proof by the
pro-dope crowd, is less than compelling, up close. The Swedes started out
on a similar tangent, but after preliminary chaos opted for a more
restrictive program, stressing treatment and rehabilitation. It's said to
work quite well.

So, while concerned professionals met to discuss options, those loyal to
intoxication stewed in opposition. A marijuana advocacy booth was set up
outside, from which encouragement to smoke up was shared with passers-by,
including a group of curious schoolkids.

All to frame the police as enemies. Never mind that we're as interested in
harm reduction as any other piece of the recovery puzle. Or that we'd be
happier than most to see rehabilitation and treatment in action.

To offer anything but help getting high to addicts in decline is
disrespectful, we're told; authoritative and unenlightened.

It's sad to be prompted in such a way to abandon the mystical search. If
personal "enlightenment" creates spiteful obstinacy, and sightless devotion
to liberal agenda, I'll be looking for company here in the dim.